Telangana High Court
Madagoni Sriramulu vs The State Of Telangana on 6 March, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.32267 of 2023
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records relating to impugned order passed by respondent No.3 dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner vide Old Case No.F2/7093/2018 (New Case No.F2/Spl.Tribunal/0201/2021) dated 28.01.2021 in respect of his agricultural land admeasuring Ac.10.00 guntas in Survey Nos.341 and 342 situated at Vallala Revenue Village Sivar, Shaligouraram Mandal, Nalgonda District, and to consequently set aside the same, as illegal and arbitrary.
The petitioner claims to have purchased agricultural land admeasuring Ac.10.00 guntas in Survey Nos.341 and 342 situated at Vallala Revenue Village Sivar, Shaligouraram Mandal, Nalgonda District from its lawful pattadar by name Malla Reddy, who is father respondent No.6 herein, on 10.02.1985 under Sadabainama and since then he is cultivating the said land without any interruption. It is stated that acting upon the application submitted by the petitioner for regularisation of the said Sadabainama under the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short "the ROR Act 1971"), , the Tahsildar, 2 Shaligouraram Mandal i.e., respondent No.5 herein, after conducting enquiry, issued 13-B Certificate vide Proceedings No.B/1485/2006 dated 16.03.2008 and regularised the land under Sababainama and mutated his name in the revenue records and issued pattadar pass book and title deed in his favour. It is further stated that questioning the same, respondent No.6, who is not having any right or title over the subject land, approached the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda Division, by filing an appeal under Section 5(5) of the ROR Act of 1971 and the same was allowed, against which the petitioner preferred a revision petition vide Case No.F2/7093/2018, which in turn has been transferred to the Special Tribunal, Nalgonda i.e., respondent No.3 herein, in view of the repeal Act came into force, and renumbered as New Case No.F2/Spl.Tribunal/0201/2021. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.3, without appreciating the matter from the proper perspective, dismissed the revision in a mechanical manner.
Ms. Murudula, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6, relying upon the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.6, vehemently contended that the petitioner has submitted a false representation before respondent No.5 stating that the document dated 28.07.1985 is a Sadabainama; in fact the said 3 document is an agreement of sale; thus, the petitioner fraudulently obtained certificate under Section 13-B of the ROR Act of 1971 from respondent No.5; a reading of the said document would clearly reveal that part of the sale consideration has been paid; unless entire sale consideration is paid and possession of the property is delivered, the petitioner is not entitled for regularisation of land under the guise of Sadabainama; as such, respondent No.6 filed appeal under Section 5(5) of the ROR Act of 1971 before respondent No.4, who in turn duly taking into consideration the said fact, has set aside the 13-B Certificate issued by respondent No.5 in favour of the petitioner by relegating him to approach the civil court seeking specific performance of agreement of sale; but despite the same, the petitioner preferred a revision before respondent No.3 challenging the said order; and respondent No.5 passed the impugned order dismissing the said revision by holding that respondent No.4 had rightly set aside the 13-B certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Konkana Ravinder Goud and others vs. Bhavanarishi Co-operative House Building Society and others 1.
1 2003(6) ALT 1 4 Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record.
A careful examination of the alleged Sadabainama relied upon by the petitioner reveals that it is only agreement of sale, as the recitals therein would clearly state that only part of sale consideration is paid and as such the Tahsildar is not having any power or authority for regularisation of the subject land much less issue 13-B Certificate on the basis of the said document in favour of the petitioner. Furthermore, the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, while dealing with similar issue, in the case of Konkana Ravinder Goud (1 supra) observed as under:-
"67. In the instant case, we are concerned with the purport and meaning of the word "transfer" as contained in Section 5- A of the Act in the light of the objects and reasons in introducing the said provision, namely, to regularise an unregistered sale transaction, which would not mean to regularise incomplete transfers. There is no machinery or mechanism provided in the Act that even a person who has entered into an agreement of sale and in case sale is not completed but he has been put into possession of the property even on payment of entire sale consideration that can approach the Mandal Revenue Officer for grant of a certificate under Section 5-A of the Act. The Mandal Revenue Officer in such a case cannot proceed to hold an enquiry as to whether agreement of sale has been complied with or not. On the failure on the part of vendor to complete the sale transaction, a person in whose favour there is an agreement of sale can seek specific 5 performance of the agreement of sale so as to convey right, title or interest of the vendors. The machinery provided under the Act is not the appropriate machinery for perfecting title merely on the basis of agreement to sell. We are, therefore, of the view that the finding of the learned Judge that there is a valid transfer of immoveable property under agreements of sale cannot be sustained. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the agreement of sale relied upon by the Society is not covered by the term transfer and cannot be treated as an "alienation" or "transfer" within the scope and meaning of Section 5-A of the Act and we answer the first question accordingly.
In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner and confirming the order passed by the appellate authority.
Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies as available in accordance with law.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J 06.03.2025 JSU